IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Consumer Learning, Switching Costs, and Heterogeneity: A Structural Examination

Listed author(s):
  • Matthew Osborne

    (Economic Analysis Group, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice)

Registered author(s):

    I formulate an econometric model of consumer learning and experimentation about new products in markets for packaged goods that nests alternative sources of dynamics. The model is estimated on household level scanner data of laundry detergent purchases, and the results suggest that consumers have very similar expectations of their match value with new products before consumption experience with the good, but once consumers have learned their true match values they are very heterogeneous. I demonstrate that resolving consumer uncertainty about the new products increases market shares by 24 to 58%. The estimation results also suggest significant switching costs: removing switching costs increases new product market shares by 12 to 23%. Using counterfactual computations derived from the estimates of the structural demand model, I demonstrate that the presence of switching costs with learning changes the implications of the standard empirical learning model: the intermediate run impact of an introductory price cut on a new product’s market share is significantly greater when the only source of dynamics is switching costs as opposed to when both learning and switching costs are present, which suggests that firms should combine price cuts with introductory advertising or free samples to increase their impact. Because my model includes two different types of dynamics, I am able to assess the impact of ignoring learning or switching costs on the model’s imputed long run price elasticities by reestimating the model assuming that one of these dynamics is not present. I find that ignoring learning will i) lead to underestimates of the own price elasticities of new products by 30%, ii) will underestimate the cross-price elasticities between new and established products by up to 90%, iii) will overestimate the cross-price elasticities of established products by up to 15%. Ignoring switching costs will lead to underestimates of own price elasticities of up to 60%, and underestimates of crossprice elasticities of up to 90%.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Department of Justice, Antitrust Division in its series EAG Discussions Papers with number 200710.

    in new window

    Length: 70 pages
    Date of creation: Sep 2007
    Handle: RePEc:doj:eagpap:200710
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20530

    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Sofia Berto Villas-Boas & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2008. "Learning, Forgetting, and Sales," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1951-1960, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:doj:eagpap:200710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Tung Vu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.